"Good Energy" has very bad data
A science book with questionable footnotes?
Casey and Calley Means’ star skyrocketed after appearing on Tucker Carlson’s podcast. From there, they headed to congress for Ron Johnson’s MAHA panel and, as the contrarian circuit dictates, Joe Rogan’s podcast.
They’re now firm fixtures on the alt-med wellness circuit, having chipped away for years, with biohacking continuous glucose monitoring, by decrying tested pharmaceuticals in order to sell untested supplements.
More precedent: their bestselling book, Good Energy: The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health, was published in May. As with other PopSci books, it flattens complex medical issues to a single “cause” in an attempt to pin poor health outcomes on one factor.
Witness the opening sentence of marketing copy:
What if depression, anxiety, infertility, insomnia, heart disease, erectile dysfunction, type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's, dementia, cancer and many other health conditions that torture and shorten our lives actually have the same root cause?
What if? But…hardly.
Perhaps the biggest red flag, however, is that a book that purports to be about science has hard-to-source footnotes that don’t always state what the authors claim.
The book oversimplifies the causes of chronic diseases and health conditions by attributing them primarily to metabolic dysfunction—or, incredibly, the specter they’ve termed “bad energy.” Heavy on anecdotes and bad data, the book is all about affect, not science.
While metabolic health is undoubtedly important, the Means’ overlook (or ignore) genetic predisposition, environmental factors, infectious diseases, autoimmune processes, and psychosocial factors.
Casey Means, who trained in head and neck surgery, and Calley, a business graduate who works with right-wing organizations like the Teneo Network and Heritage Foundation, overlook numerous health and social factors in their assessment.
Let’s look at the major ones.
Lack of historical nuance
The Means’ makes broad claims about the absence of chronic diseases in wild animals and historical human populations. This claim overlooks important nuances:
Wild animals experience diseases, though perhaps at different rates than domesticated animals
Historical human populations had shorter lifespans on average, potentially masking age-related chronic conditions
Lack of diagnostic capabilities in the past may have led to underreporting of chronic conditions
On the topic of animals, the Means write,
Outdoor cats exposed to harsher environments have significantly less obesity than indoor cats. And 50 percent of domesticated dogs over age ten develop cancer, yet this rarely happens to dogs or wolves in the wild. Depression afflicts 75 percent of domesticated dogs but is rare in wild animals.
The first sentence is so ridiculous I can’t believe it was written down. And an editor actually signed off on it.
Outdoor cats live an average of 2-5 years; indoor cats, 12-18 years. Sure, outdoor cats are likely less obese because they have to source their own food. Plus, many cat owners free feed their cats, often dry food—a terrible idea. Yet somehow the Means are drawing an analogy to human health.
The same goes for dogs: domesticated dogs live longer because they’re taken care of (with vaccines, checkups, medications, reliable food, and love), so the chances they’ll develop cancer later in life is obvious, as it’s generally a disease of aging.
As for the 75% number, I’m guessing that’s based on one small study in the UK that only applied to dogs in Britain. The literature on canine mental health doesn’t confirm this.
Oversimplification of metabolic processes
The concepts of "Good Energy" and "Bad Energy" oversimplify the complex and interconnected nature of cellular metabolism. Metabolic processes involve intricate feedback loops and regulatory mechanisms that aren’t accurately captured by such binary categorization.
Metabolism is the complex network of chemical reactions that encompass all the processes that convert nutrients into energy, build and repair cellular structures, and eliminate waste products.
There are two main processes:
Catabolism: Breakdown processes that release energy. Complex molecules become simpler ones, often releasing energy in the form of ATP.
Anabolism: Building-up processes that require energy. Synthesizing complex molecules from simpler precursors, energy is typically derived from ATP.
Metabolism is tightly regulated by various factors:
Enzymes: These proteins catalyze and regulate the rate of metabolic reactions
Hormones: Insulin, glucagon, cortisol, and thyroid hormones play crucial roles in regulating various aspects of metabolism
Nervous system
Environmental factors (like temperature)
Genetic factors
The flattening of this process as “good” and “bad” makes no sense given how many factors are involved. Yet the Means flatten science with paragraphs like:
If an ovarian theca cell is experiencing Bad Energy, it looks like infertility in the form of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). If a blood vessel–lining cell is experiencing Bad Energy, it can look like erectile dysfunction, heart disease, high blood pressure, retinal problems, or chronic kidney disease (all issues resulting from poor blood flow to different organs). If a liver cell is experiencing Bad Energy, it can look like nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). In the brain, Bad Energy can look like depression, stroke, dementia, migraine, or chronic pain, depending on where these dysfunctional cellular processes are most prominently showing up.
Each of these processes are well-studied. “Bad Energy” is a term for people who don’t want to take the time to look into the literature or study the processes, which is exactly what wellness influencers bank on. They expect their mystical explanations will satisfy this ignorance, and sadly, they’re often correct.
It goes on.
Overemphasis on lifestyle factors
While lifestyle factors are crucial for health, Good Energy places almost exclusive emphasis on them. For example:
Preventable lifestyle conditions are responsible for 80 percent of modern human deaths
I’m clueless as to where they found that number. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study found that behavioral factors account for 35% of all premature deaths in the US, with metabolic risk factors contributing another 29%.
Research from the UN found that healthy lifestyle factors can reduce the risk of developing common chronic diseases by as much as 80%. That’s important, but not at all what the Means’ write.
The Means’ overwhelming focus on lifestyle downplays the role of:
Socioeconomic determinants of health
Access to healthcare
Occupational exposures
Structural and systemic factors influencing health outcomes
Underestimation of medical interventions
Their criticism of medical interventions ignores demonstrated benefits in managing certain conditions and reducing mortality rates in specific populations. For example, they list 10 factors that “ravage our mitochondria.” One includes:
Many medications hurt the function of mitochondria. These include several antibiotics, chemotherapy drugs, antiretroviral drugs, statins, beta-blockers, and high blood pressure medications called calcium channel blockers. Alcohol, methamphetamines, cocaine, heroin, and ketamine may also negatively impact mitochondria.
Let’s take statins, an overwhelming success that help people manage and reduce cholesterol, improve quality of life, and decrease all-cause mortality.
While it is true that they can have some negative impacts on mitochondrial functions, some studies suggest that statins might improve mitochondrial respiration in certain cells, such as peripheral blood mononuclear cells and platelets.
That is: their effect is context-dependent. The Means don’t discuss the potential positive results of this class of drugs. Again, it’s just flattened.
Which is not science. But it sure makes for a good meme.